I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.
The professional commentariat have been STUNNED to find this large group of Labour MPs they promised would be willing to commit career suicide to rush to the defence of a doomed Tory prime has utterly failed to materialise.
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.
For now, yes.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invoke
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
They are and it is illegitimate.
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
In a commercial negotiation, the negotiators are given a clear set of objectives and constraints. Our negotiators have no clue what the end position is because our government has no clue.
The last two years have been a total waste of everyone's time. Whatever we settle on will be caused by force of circumstance rather than achieving what we wanted.
The end position is immaterial, the EU are refusing to negotiate on that until we are a third party.
I was referring to the Withdrawal Agreement. I suspect we also have not got the faintest idea about the next stage either and we will send another bunch of uninformed unfortunates to sit in Brussels to face a well-prepared EU team.
Frankly, I am getting to the point were I am amazed that those in govt can actually manage to write their names without help.
who do you think has been hegotiating on our behalf for the last 40 years ?
At the next GE, the party forming a government could be elected with around 40% of the votes cast. When was the last time that the government was elected with more than 50% of the votes cast?
When, if ever. did the elected party get more than 17 million votes?
What's that? Oh, it's tumbleweed drifting across.
2010.
Parties forming a government got 10,703,754 plus 6,836,824 = 17,540,578 votes Or 59.1% of the votes cast.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. Aof negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking Arey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
They haven't thought about that.
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
Are you still peddling this crap? To use your analogy the CEO has gone rogue, and the saner members of the Board never wanted a negotiation in the first place.
More like the board dont like the result of the shareholders vote and are frustrating the CEO's attempts to implement it.
At the next GE, the party forming a government could be elected with around 40% of the votes cast. When was the last time that the government was elected with more than 50% of the votes cast?
When, if ever. did the elected party get more than 17 million votes?
What's that? Oh, it's tumbleweed drifting across.
2010.
Parties forming a government got 10,703,754 plus 6,836,824 = 17,540,578 votes Or 59.1% of the votes cast.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
They haven't thought about that.
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.
For now, yes.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invoke
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
Totally disagree.
There is a referendum and GE mandate for carrying out Brexit. Just because MPs can’t agree on the form and manner of our exit doesn’t mean that mandate is voided.
Following your own logic, there is no mandate for revoking in the first place.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
I suppose in theory the government could bring forward a one-line bill requiring Brexit to be revoked if no withdrawal agreement has been ratified by the exit date.
Which does nothing but encourage the EU to play silly buggers to encourage revocation.
Seems rather like saying "If I definitely rule out shooting myself in the head people are only going to take advantage of it."
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
They are and it is illegitimate.
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".
People do vote to be poorer (eg overseas aid) and the only questions on the ballot were leave and remain.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. Aof negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking Arey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
They haven't thought about that.
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
Are you still peddling this crap? To use your analogy the CEO has gone rogue, and the saner members of the Board never wanted a negotiation in the first place.
More like the board dont like the result of the shareholders vote and are frustrating the CEO's attempts to implement it.
More like the board and the CEO both don't like the result of the shareholders vote but the board are frustrating the CEO's attempts to implement something intended to deceive shareholders as a means to saving her own position.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
nonsense
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
Tory sources tell the Guardian it will be as low as 80-100, so unless they are truly awful at the expectations game, both Sammy and the estimate 200+ majorities are well out.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.
*Yawn*
Using population figures is disengenous because population has increased over time. You got 52% and that’s no huge mandate what so ever.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.
It would be more democratic than what we may be about to witness. May is using the clock to overpower public consent and Parliament.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.
*Yawn*
Using population figures is disengenous because population has increased over time. You got 52% and that’s no huge mandate what so ever.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
nonsense
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
This is a nonsense response. In fact is it proto-totalitarian.
Tory sources tell the Guardian it will be as low as 80-100, so unless they are truly awful at the expectations game, both Sammy and the estimate 200+ majorities are well out.
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.
Except that they have said they are in favour of remaining within the CU, and almost all of their MPs are not sympathetic to hard brexit. Therefore the will of the people is far from clear. When you combine that with the MPs on the Conservative Party that are hostile to Brexit and the other parties including (I hate to have to mention them) the SNP it becomes clear that it is not clear at all. Brexit can't be Brexit, because there is no clear mandate for any one version
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
This was the Theresa May's "original sin". She treated a once in a generation referendum as a five-yearly general election. A general election it's fine to say sod you to the opposition and not take a scintilla of their demands into account when formulating policy (unless you can't get a majority at the GE!).
But with an epochal referendum, especially a close one, where there is (not expected to be) another vote any time soon, that is not the right approach. It was a fundamental mistake to apply an adversarial winner takes all approach to a far more complex situation.
I agree with most of that. I would have settled with an EEA deal akin to Norway once she lost her majority if she’d focussed instead on domestic policy. That seemed to me to be the message of the 2017 GE - too many other issues needed urgent attention. Now I’ll take no deal but there is no chance it will happen. Too many people seem to be pushing Norway simply as a base to rejoin.
The trouble is Brexit means whatever people want it to mean and May hasn’t built a concensus. She only knows adversarial politics and she has made too many mistakes chasing her deal, not least abandoning the DUP. If Labour were led by anyone other than Corbyn with McDonnell as his Shadow Chancellor, May couldn’t even rely on their support in the VONC.
I wouldn’t be too sure there won’t be another referendum soon. There shouldn’t be a need for a second referendum without the first having been implemented but the failure of our political system I think makes it quite likely it will happen.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
Re public consent on the Deal:
I think she would be up for putting it to the public as a simple ratify the treaty? yes/no - but the consensus on here is that no way would this be allowed.
Leaving only the option of a Deal v Remain referendum.
Now that might just come to pass but I would not hail it as being particularly democratic. It would be more a last gasp desperate measure - a Plan Z - to end the gridlock.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
nonsense
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
This is a nonsense response. In fact is it proto-totalitarian.
youve gone madder than a box of frogs dusted with crystal meth
this is the first time in ages the elctorate has been asked its views, every other move to ever closer union has seen the electorate shut out
this was of course nuts as nearly every vote would have seen a curmudgeonly electorate hold its nose and vote it through
Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
They are and it is illegitimate.
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".
People do vote to be poorer (eg overseas aid) and the only questions on the ballot were leave and remain.
I think it is false to suggest “no one ever voted to be poorer”, but in this instance Leave promised milk and honey.
IIRC polling after the vote backed this up (leave voters did *not* vote to be poorer) but leave sentiment changed as the economic realities became undeniable.
I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.
For now, yes.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?
I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invoke
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
Totally disagree.
There is a referendum and GE mandate for carrying out Brexit. Just because MPs can’t agree on the form and manner of our exit doesn’t mean that mandate is voided.
Following your own logic, there is no mandate for revoking in the first place.
I think you may misunderstand me. Your first paragraph is the reason A50 was invoked by 498 mps giving the go ahead
If we decide to revoke now it has to be done constitutionally and cannot be a ruse for buying time to restart the process. If Parliament revokes A50 it would need authority to re-invoke it
Tory sources tell the Guardian it will be as low as 80-100, so unless they are truly awful at the expectations game, both Sammy and the estimate 200+ majorities are well out.
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.
I think a 90 majority would be the worst of all worlds, giving Mrs May a short term boost, but still no obvious path to a majority
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
Tory sources tell the Guardian it will be as low as 80-100, so unless they are truly awful at the expectations game, both Sammy and the estimate 200+ majorities are well out.
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.
I've made this point before. Can't support = won't vote for. But not against. a) it's not in Tory MPs DNA to vote against their PM and b) a significant number want to express dismay at the deal whilst NOT being tied to supporting the headbangers. Expect a lot of unexpected abstentions.
Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
They are and it is illegitimate.
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".
People do vote to be poorer (eg overseas aid) and the only questions on the ballot were leave and remain.
I think it is false to suggest “no one ever voted to be poorer”, but in this instance Leave promised milk and honey.
IIRC polling after the vote backed this up (leave voters did *not* vote to be poorer) but leave sentiment changed as the economic realities became undeniable.
It was (and is) very common among Leave voters to expect little change in their circumstances.
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
In a commercial negotiation, the negotiators are given a clear set of objectives and constraints. Our negotiators have no clue what the end position is because our government has no clue.
The last two years have been a total waste of everyone's time. Whatever we settle on will be caused by force of circumstance rather than achieving what we wanted.
The end position is immaterial, the EU are refusing to negotiate on that until we are a third party.
I was referring to the Withdrawal Agreement. I suspect we also have not got the faintest idea about the next stage either and we will send another bunch of uninformed unfortunates to sit in Brussels to face a well-prepared EU team.
Frankly, I am getting to the point were I am amazed that those in govt can actually manage to write their names without help.
who do you think has been hegotiating on our behalf for the last 40 years ?
Not David Davis, Liam Fox or Boris "Phew! Err.. Golly" Johnson.
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.
I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.
The professional commentariat have been STUNNED to find this large group of Labour MPs they promised would be willing to commit career suicide to rush to the defence of a doomed Tory prime has utterly failed to materialise.
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.
For now, yes.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invoke
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
I'm sure you think highly of Ken Clarke. Could you explain why he thinks that the ECJ ruling does mean we can revoke and then re-invoke when we wish?
Tory sources tell the Guardian it will be as low as 80-100, so unless they are truly awful at the expectations game, both Sammy and the estimate 200+ majorities are well out.
80-100 would be a good result for May given some current estimates. Both she and the EU would probably see that as green light for Plan B to simply representing her deal - until MPs get the answer “right”.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
nonsense
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
This is a nonsense response. In fact is it proto-totalitarian.
youve gone madder than a box of frogs dusted with crystal meth
this is the first time in ages the elctorate has been asked its views, every other move to ever closer union has seen the electorate shut out
this was of course nuts as nearly every vote would have seen a curmudgeonly electorate hold its nose and vote it through
I have consistently argued that there ought to have been referendums for Maastricht and Lisbon.
And, I was in favour of this referendum.
However May is attempting to impose a solution *nobody* wants, and arguing that “your side does it” smacks of life under a Latin American junta.
While the UK has taken steps to ensure that UK customers of EU insurers will hold valid contracts no matter what, a reciprocal step is yet to be taken by the EU as a whole. The latest BoE estimate shows that 9m policyholders in the EEA remain at risk.
Tory sources tell the Guardian it will be as low as 80-100, so unless they are truly awful at the expectations game, both Sammy and the estimate 200+ majorities are well out.
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.
Abstentions work just as well for the 'aye' sellers..
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
There is nothing democratic about a unilateral revocation of Article 50 by a majority of MPs who were elected on manifestos promising to deliver Brexit, following a referendum which saw the greatest direct mandate in British history.
*Yawn*
Using population figures is disengenous because population has increased over time. You got 52% and that’s no huge mandate what so ever.
We got 8% more votes than you guys. It’s not that narrow.
I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the fore
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the h.
nonsense
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
This is a nonsense response. In fact is it proto-totalitarian.
youve gone madder than a box of frogs dusted with crystal meth
this is the first time in ages the elctorate has been asked its views, every other move to ever closer union has seen the electorate shut out
this was of course nuts as nearly every vote would have seen a curmudgeonly electorate hold its nose and vote it through
I have consistently argued that there ought to have been referendums for Maastricht and Lisbon.
And, I was in favour of this referendum.
However May is attempting to impose a solution *nobody* wants, and arguing that “your side does it” smacks of life under a Latin American junta.
Major imposed a solution which was unpopular, so did Brown. The chronic problem for the EU is it cant build legitimacy on the back of a diktat. Those protesting about May's arm twisting are largely the same people who satyed silent when others twisted the arms.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
Tory sources tell the Guardian it will be as low as 80-100, so unless they are truly awful at the expectations game, both Sammy and the estimate 200+ majorities are well out.
Hard to see how they can limit the majority to such a low (!) figure as 80-100, unless a substantial number of Tory MPs who have said they won't support the deal abstain rather than vote against.
I've made this point before. Can't support = won't vote for. But not against. a) it's not in Tory MPs DNA to vote against their PM and b) a significant number want to express dismay at the deal whilst NOT being tied to supporting the headbangers. Expect a lot of unexpected abstentions.
Could be a lot of busy tellers with a lot of MPs walking into both lobbies.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.
I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.
For now, yes.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
With the greatest of respect you cannot conditionally revoke A50 by reserving the right to re-invoke
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
I'm sure you think highly of Ken Clarke. Could you explain why he thinks that the ECJ ruling does mean we can revoke and then re-invoke when we wish?
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal. Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case. John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU. Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:15
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal. Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case. John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU. Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:15
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling
Please feel free to point me to where in the ECJ's ruling (as opposed to the advocate general's opinion) it says that we cannot re-invoke it in future.
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling
Please feel free to point me to where in the ECJ's ruling (as opposed to the advocate general's opinion) it says that we cannot re-invoke it in future.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced". We'd be accepting we'd be staying in the EU unconditionally for now; what we would choose to do in future is a different matter.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling
Please feel free to point me to where in the ECJ's ruling (as opposed to the advocate general's opinion) it says that we cannot re-invoke it in future.
FWIW, I think it would not be impossible to invoke A50 in the future. But, if we attempted to reinvoke it shortly after withdrawing it, we would not be seen as acting in good faith.
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal. Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case. John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU. Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:15
WTF is Bercow doing?
Enacting revenge for his humiliation the other week.
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
I like the way people are talking like an 80 vote defeat is a victory. What comes next? Redefining black as white? Wet as dry?
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
once again the inadequacies of the FTPA come to the fore
A damn shame the Tories didn't get a majority at the last election - it would have been ditched (although quite how you close pandora's box wrt the prerogative is beyond me).
You can’t restore an extinguished prerogative but I would have thought some form of words along the lines of “Her Majesty, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, may make an order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.
What is the point - they should have done it before
Quite. The lack of honour and integrity being shown by MPs of all persuasions is probably to be expected with the current crop. But it is dispiriting nonetheless.
A plague on most of their houses (there are a few exceptions...)
You are possessed with this. I respect Ken Clarke but did not hear his comments
The simple fact is A50 can only be revoked through the UK consitutional process
It cannot be used as a ruse and to re-invoke has to be in a manner that would pass an ECJ ruling
Please feel free to point me to where in the ECJ's ruling (as opposed to the advocate general's opinion) it says that we cannot re-invoke it in future.
FWIW, I think it would not be impossible to invoke A50 in the future. But, if we attempted to reinvoke it shortly after withdrawing it, we would not be seen as acting in good faith.
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal. Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case. John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU. Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:15
WTF is Bercow doing?
Enacting revenge for his humiliation the other week.
80-100 would be a good result for May given some current estimates. Both she and the EU would probably see that as green light for Plan B to simply representing her deal - until MPs get the answer “right”.
It would be a triumph. Which shows what a one-off situation this is.
50/1 on Betfair for the implied 'ayes' in such a result - although that calculation assumes no abstentions.
Mr. Notme, possibly. More likely, I think, gratitude to Labour for saving him some months ago, and a genuine pro-EU belief coupled with an utter willingness to meddle in the game rather than be an objective umpire.
I have realised there are only two democratic paths at this point.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country. It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
I think it was stated earlier that we can't revoke just to decide how to leave
That's wrong. The advocate general's recommendation was that we shouldn't be able to revoke, only to re-invoke later -- but the ECJ's final ruling rejected that recommendation. The ECJ's only caveat to our right to revoke A50 was that it had to be within the UK's own constitutional requirements.
Our 'Constitutional Requirements' are whatever the last person got away with.
Well, quite - so in effect our right to revoke A50 is absolute, even if we were to re-invoke it just 5 minutes later.
No, it's not. It needs to be "unequivocal and unconditional". I wouldn't call revoking for five minutes unequivocal.
Eh? It would be unequivocal and unconditional. No-one's suggesting we'd say "we revoke Article 50, only on condition that our contributions to the EU Budget are reduced".
You really think after revoking and invoking after five minutes that the EU Commission wouldn't challenge that at the ECJ?
On what grounds would the EU Commission challenge it? They'd have to prove it was against the UK's "constitutional requirements", since that was the only caveat to our right to revoke.
I'm sure they wouldn't be happy that it was happening, but they already lost the argument on whether the UK should have the power to do it in the original court case.
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken by the Prime Minister when she took office.
It was a Vote Leave commitment in the campaign. May didn’t have to honour that. She saw it as the only way to stop freedom of movement, which it is, but then she only ever saw the referendum result in terms of stopping freedom of movement.
Comments
If A50 was be to invoked again, it would need to follow another referendum or a political party receiving a majority on a manifesto commitment to leave the EU
I do not know about Corbyn but Starmer, as a lawyer, knows very well you cannot play games with revoking A50
I know we all at times get a bit carried away with our ideas but on this you are either expressing your own hope or are mistaken
Perhaps the most noxious sentence in the lexicon right now* - used again and again by both Hard Leavers and Hard Remainers ...
"This is not the Brexit that people voted for".
It is.
PS: A close run thing with "Nobody voted to be poorer".
Parties forming a government got 10,703,754 plus 6,836,824 = 17,540,578 votes
Or 59.1% of the votes cast.
There is a referendum and GE mandate for carrying out Brexit. Just because MPs can’t agree on the form and manner of our exit doesn’t mean that mandate is voided.
Following your own logic, there is no mandate for revoking in the first place.
The first is to revoke, do the hard work of building a coherent and more broadly accepted form of Brexit in order to reinvoke at a later stage.
The second is public consent on the deal.
Right now May is holding a gun to everyone’s heads: her Party, Parliament and the country.
It is undemocratic to attempt to impose a solution which Brexiters themselves do not favour, let alone the country at large.
and the people who screwed the who;e thing up get to do it once more
ignoring the electorate is the modus operandi of politicians on the EU
you just dont like it because the shoes on the other foot this time
Using population figures is disengenous because population has increased over time. You got 52% and that’s no huge mandate what so ever.
So stop the clock.
In fact is it proto-totalitarian.
The trouble is Brexit means whatever people want it to mean and May hasn’t built a concensus. She only knows adversarial politics and she has made too many mistakes chasing her deal, not least abandoning the DUP. If Labour were led by anyone other than Corbyn with McDonnell as his Shadow Chancellor, May couldn’t even rely on their support in the VONC.
I wouldn’t be too sure there won’t be another referendum soon. There shouldn’t be a need for a second referendum without the first having been implemented but the failure of our political system I think makes it quite likely it will happen.
America: where President Big Boy serves cold fast food to sports teams to 'stick it to the libtards'.
I think she would be up for putting it to the public as a simple ratify the treaty? yes/no - but the consensus on here is that no way would this be allowed.
Leaving only the option of a Deal v Remain referendum.
Now that might just come to pass but I would not hail it as being particularly democratic. It would be more a last gasp desperate measure - a Plan Z - to end the gridlock.
this is the first time in ages the elctorate has been asked its views, every other move to ever closer union has seen the electorate shut out
this was of course nuts as nearly every vote would have seen a curmudgeonly electorate hold its nose and vote it through
IIRC polling after the vote backed this up (leave voters did *not* vote to be poorer) but leave sentiment changed as the economic realities became undeniable.
You can't negotiate if you reveal up front what you would do if you fail to reach an agreement.
Sometimes cards do have to be kept very close to your chest - for legitimate and understandable reasons.
It is a shame that so many MPs (and commentators) seem to have lost the ability to reason over this.
If we decide to revoke now it has to be done constitutionally and cannot be a ruse for buying time to restart the process. If Parliament revokes A50 it would need authority to re-invoke it
ITV reports that Bob Blackman will vote for the Deal.
Hannan’s Interest has only ever been trade. Nothing wrong with that but negotiating trade deals with others if you’re bound by the SM regs would be a challenge.
The decision to leave the Single Market was taken early on in the campaign, by Gove I think, precisely to facilitate trade deals with other countries.
A defeat of 80 is still a defeat. And a big one.
And, I was in favour of this referendum.
However May is attempting to impose a solution *nobody* wants, and arguing that “your side does it” smacks of life under a Latin American junta.
What a shame.
And hordes of people still think that this shambles of an idea is a good one?
Unbelievable!!
In practice I can't see it being a problem, the EU will just extend a blanket extension to the authorisations, so it's probably a non-story.
John Bercow has slapped down May’s hopes of winning over sceptical backbenchers with Andrew Murrison’s amendment, by not sdelecting it to be voted on. The four he has selected instead are:
Jeremy Corbyn Rejects the deal because it does not meet Labour’s criteria, including a customs union and strong single market relationship. Says government should “pursue every option” for avoiding no-deal or leaving on the terms of May’s deal.
Sir Edward Leigh States that a permanent backstop would constitute a change in circumstances compared to those in the Withdrawal Agreement and that this would give the UK the right to withdraw from it. Asks the government to confirm it would do so if this was the case.
John Baron Also says the deal should only be approved if the UK has the right to exit the backstop without the agreement of the EU.
Ian Blackford Rejects the deal, citing opposition from the devolved assemblies, and calls for an extension of Article 50.
These amendments will be voted on from 7pm. If, as expected, none of them pass, then the we can expect the meaningful vote to take place at 8pm, with the result at around 8:15
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-6577623/Britains-burglary-hotspots-revealed-B95-postcode-topping-charts.html
Mrs B decidedly unhappy
To be pedantic, there is also Sylvia Hermon representing a further 3.3% of voters (and I think she favour's May's deal).
John Woodcock is against, which surprised me a bit.
In terms of the betting, what happens if MPs vote in both lobbies?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/gm-foods-scientific-ignorance-fuels-extremist-views-study
The results from more than 2,500 respondents revealed the curious trend. “What we found is that as the extremity of opposition increased, objective knowledge went down, but self-assessed knowledge went up,” Fernbach said.
“The extremists are more poorly calibrated. If you don’t know much, it’s hard to assess how much you know,” Fernbach added. “The feeling of understanding that they have then stops them from learning the truth. Extremism can be perverse in that way.”
order-in-council to dissolve Parliament” would do the trick.
A plague on most of their houses (there are a few exceptions...)
50/1 on Betfair for the implied 'ayes' in such a result - although that calculation assumes no abstentions.
I'm sure they wouldn't be happy that it was happening, but they already lost the argument on whether the UK should have the power to do it in the original court case.